Noah's Ark: An Impossible Voyage (Part V)


Read Part I

Read Part II

Read Part III

Read Part IV

19. I know you’re just going to claim that “God did it,” in response to all the objections I’ve raised here. But if that’s the case, why did you bother ever writing your article in the first place? What was the point? You promoted a “scientific” essay – meaning you’re trying to explain this fairy tail without any supernatural appeals - but then you don’t include any scientific details! You just gave us your un-credentialed opinions on how some of the logistics might have happened, and then claimed it was “science!” Let’s just stop for a sec and list all the miracles that would’ve needed to occur to make this story possible:

- The boat is built by a 500-year old man with no prior boat-making experience.

- The boat is not physically possible to construct, but came into existence anyway.

- The boat included no blueprints for the parts of boats that keep them from flipping over, yet the boat didn’t flip over.

- Animals from half way around the planet somehow migrated to your boat.

- The unique foods these animals eat somehow migrated as well, contrary to everything we’ve learned from Monty Python (coconuts are non-migratory, after all).

- Animals somehow got back to their homes afterwards.

- 8 senior citizens with no background in exotic animal care somehow managed to care for critters they’d never even heard or dreamt of.

- The cargo and manifest were like a gazillion times larger than the actual boat, but still somehow managed to fit inside.

- No animals that only eat meat were eating any meat.

- There was absolutely no animal reproduction during this entire voyage.

- Nobody was killed (and extincted) during this wooden Poseidon Adventure.

- The boat was barraged by a catastrophic flood for a year, but still managed to end up right about where it started

- Somehow, a ramp was constructed on the outside of an Ark that was sealed from the outside, allowing the animals to get off.

- Every living thing not taken on the Ark was killed, but now somehow all of the carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores have enough stuff to eat in their new soggy world that they don’t die.

- 8 people of the same family and race managed to repopulate the planet with a dozen different races. (wait, I’m sure you handled this one with the Tower of Babel or something. My bad.)

The sheer number of supernatural miracles necessary to make this whole story work is –hands down – the single greatest combination of miraculous occurrences in the history of everything! It’s the Dream Team of miracle-y-type stuff. So why doesn’t the Bible bother to mention it? The Bible trips over itself trying to point out when miracles took place. It waves its arms around like a crack-addled runway tech trying to land a jet on an aircraft carrier letting us know that even the most mundane of miracles might have just taken place. It can’t help itself. But now, like, the definitive Awesomest Collection Of Miracles ever all happen at the same time, and nobody bothers to tell anyone? Ain’t buyin’ it! If there were miracles involved every step of the way, the Bible would have mentioned it. If there were no miracles, your boat ride isn’t possible. Where are we at now? Oh, right. This vacation never happened, guy.

(from here on out the bold letters are my own)


When I couldn’t find a definitive answer online, I briefly toyed with the idea of stealing something from our apologist’s playbook and calling Toyota or Ikea or maybe Haliburton to find out how to take care of sheep. But then the drugs wore off and I decided it might prove somewhat more educational to actually talk to someone who knows something about sheep. So I contacted the Dorper sheep breeders at Triple Cross Farm in Anza, California to ask a few questions. The first thing I asked was what the minimum amount of space was to keep 2 sheep alive for a year. The very pleasant lady I spoke with said that one acre (almost 44,000 sq ft) could sustain 5 sheep for a year if their primary source of food came from grazing. (Doubtless that our apologist friends would note that 1 acre is the equivalent of 40 Waffle Houses…or 14,000,000 Shaquille O’Neil shoeboxes…or 175 racket ball courts, or something equally pointless…so one could probably fit like 10,000 critters on the property, or something.) I told her that was out of the question. I said that I was the personal assistant for an incredibly eccentric billionaire who had recently decided to take his family on a year-long world tour aboard his 130-foot yacht.

not pictured: incredibly eccentric billionaire or sheep
not pictured: incredibly eccentric billionaire or sheep

In my imaginary scenario – as I explained it - he was planning on bringing his 3 dogs, a dozen chickens and a couple goats and sheep along for the ride for fresh eggs and milk. I was told (by a person who actually raises sheep for living - not installs car stereos or writes sermons, mind you) that a grazing sheep might eat 25 pounds of food and drink 4 or 5 gallons of water a day, but that as long as the sheep had room to walk around and get regular exercise, they could potentially be confined in a fairly small space (possibly 1 to 2 hundred sq ft) on a gallon of water and 4 pounds of grain a day. Which means over the course of a 371-day boat trip they’d need 371 gallons of water and about 1,500 pounds of food.

Let me break down just the drinking water issue for you (and I’m only dealing with the “16,000 animals” here): If an average sheep needs an average of 1 gallon of water a day, then 16,000 animals need…um…16,000 gallons of water a day. (Yeah, grasshoppers don’t drink that much, but the hippos and elephants make up for it.) Multiply by 371 days, and you need almost 6 million gallons of water to make your little boat trip. If you don’t know how much water this is off the top of your head, it’s 9 Olympic size swimming pools worth. It’s 121,032 square feet at just over 6.5 feet deep, or 786,708 cubic feet, (roughly 75% of the total space of yer boat) and weighs 48 million pounds!

Yes, nine of these.
Yes, nine of these.

Now let’s rap a sec about food. Your average sheep needs 4 pounds of grain a day to avoid being classified as anorexic or Olsen-ish. With 16,000 animals, that makes 64,000 pounds of food a day (if all your animals are eating grain for some bizarre reason). 64,000 pounds of food times 371 days is 23,477,000 pounds. A bushel (1.2 cubic feet) of grain weighs about 30 pounds, so our total food volume is 782,566 bushels, or about 973,868 cubic feet…about 90% of yer boat.

Space for Waste

What goes in must come out. That means at the start of your voyage you must have equal room empty space for waste as you do for food and water combined because your idiot deity locked your only window, preventing you from dumping it off the boat. Not complicated, right? We won’t delve into the conundrum of answering how 8 senior citizens moved all that waste from one spot to another in the dark, we’ll just sit back and point out that the necessary water is taking up 75% of the Ark, and the requisite food 90%, totaling 165%. Double that for waste and you get 330%. Add in a third of the Ark being building materials and walkways and you get 365%. Throw in the 65% of space the animals are taking up and you’re at 430%. Add in 8 human beings, and our Ark needs to be nearly 4-and-a-half times larger than the boat in Genesis just to keep the pets.

If this still sounds somewhat doable to you, next time you decide to go out on the lake for an afternoon of skiing, pack in a couple of goats and llamas, 200 bags of dog food, and as soon as you push off from the dock, fill your boat all the way up with water, and post the results on youtube.

How Many Animals Could Actually Fit On Noah’s Ark For A Year?

Let’s do this the easy way. Instead of starting off with a preconceived conclusion and trying to shoehorn all the evidence in around it, let’s start with the evidence first (novel concept!), and work forward from there.

Let’s just figure out how much room an animal the size of a sheep requires in order to stay alive for 371 days. We know an average sheep takes up an area of about 4 sq ft just standing still. It consumes a gallon of water a day - 371 gallons over the course of the voyage - which takes up about 50 cubic ft. If the sheep’s water container were 5 feet high, it would take up 10 sq ft. A sheep would require roughly 1,500 pounds of food over 371 days. That’s 50 bushels, or 62 cubic ft. If the food container were 5 feet high, it would take up just over 12 sq ft. So, a sheep’s food and water requirements for 13-month boat trip would take up 22 sq ft, and 112 cubic feet. Double that for the waste, and you have 44 sq ft, and 224 cubic feet. If you’re not going to exercise them regularly, they’d need a pen at least 100 sq ft.

Recommended (though not ideal)
Recommended (though not ideal)
  Um...not recommended at all (ever)
Um...not recommended at all (ever)

So, to account for food, water, waste, and space, your average animal is going to require a minimum of 144 sq ft of space for a 371-day sea voyage.

We’ve already seen that, given the interior dimensions of the Ark, the building materials, and the walkways, we’ve only got about 65,000 sq ft of room for everything else. 65,000 sq ft of available space divided by 144 sq ft per animal equals room for 451 animals. That’s 225 species IF we only take 2 of each kind. (And you wanted to offer us 50,000…plus DINOSAURS???!!! Have you lost your mind?) Since we need 14 of many of them, we probably have less than 200 species aboard, which actually makes the following artistic rendering seem faintly plausible:

You’ve been arguing for decades that evolution isn’t possible because even if the earth is 4.2 billion years old, there still isn’t enough time for the micro-evolution that Darwinian theory espouses. Now you have to somehow get fewer than 200 species to evolve into over a million in the span of about 4,500 years. You can thank yourself for that mess. That’s what happens when you’re dishonest. When you get called out, you have 2 choices: own up to it…or make up an even bigger untruth to defend the first one.

. Even if we gave you your 100,000 sq ft boat and only 2,000 animals, your boat still isn’t big enough by a long shot. For those of you who don’t already know why such a low figure is suggested as plausible – what with all the animals we have today – I’ll fill ya in right quick: speciation, the observable evolutionary process by which new species emerge. For example, it is commonly accepted that the grey wolf is the parent of the 200+ different breeds of dogs, hence the sharing amongst them of the Latin “surname” canis, from which we get canine. So, Noah didn’t need 2 poodles, 2 sheepdogs, and 2 Great Danes; he just needed 2 wolves. The problem is that taxonomists and zoologists believe (from the available evidence, that is, not a magical fairy book) that the wolf was first domesticated in China about 15,000 BC. Christians contend that that’s not possible. The earth is no more than 10,000 years old - despite all the evidence to the contrary – because our loving Heavenly Father is trying to trick everyone. So Christians have been whining for a century and a half that evolution moves too slow to have actually taken place, but then they want to speed up the process by about 300% of what any reputable scientist has ever argued for in order to get their Ark animals down to a manageable number. And this is why we tend to sit back laughing while you Fundamentalists trip all over yourselves coming up with fanciful explanations for things you’d regard as utter nonsense if any other religion professed them first: Every time you “solve” one problem to your own satisfaction, you end up creating an even bigger monstrosity of a dilemma to take its place.

What is “evident” once all the facts – not opinions – are considered, is that this boat trip isn’t even slightly possible by any stretch of the imagination. When the best argument you can mount is: “It is said by some that most animals have at least an indication of a latent ability to hover and ride air currents, and others have suggested that maybe this is how they crossed the Pacific ocean to get to the Ark, so that’s probably how they got there,” well, my friend, you have derailed. If I’ve learned anything from old youtube comments, this is what is called an Epic Fail.

More by this Author

Comments 28 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 6 years ago from America

hahah you want someone to explain God to you through a boat full of animals? ...shouldn't you have started with the Human Brain and body? You want to discredit God over a boat with a brain that can only think of these things while typing on the world wide net! .....Think of complexity of that all day then the boat wont need explaining!

rafken profile image

rafken 6 years ago from The worlds my oyster

They seem to think that the ark will one day be found at the top mount Ararat or somewhere like that. I've often wondered how the Giraffe or Hippo managed to get down the mountain.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

@ Rafken: Haha. I often wondered how they built a ramp on the outside of the Ark after it finally landed so everyone could get off.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

@ American Romance: I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Nothing in this article had anything to do with the existence of God (let alone my desire to have it explained to me), but the plausibility of a story about a primitive floating zoo.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me in their comments, but I do appreciate when whatever is written at least demonstrates that you actually READ the article and understood what you were reading.

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

Your series is warped by fallacies. Foremost being the appeal to ridicule in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument." Then you proceed to build a straw man (an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position) and then you proceed to burn it down. Your errors in fact are many. Have you read the Genesis account? If you had you would clearly read that God stated only air breathing animals would go on the ark (Genesis 7:14-15, 21-23). Therefore, no water living creatures and no insects since they breathe through their skin. Or that before the flood all animals (and people) were vegetarian before and during the Flood according to Genesis 1:20–30 with Genesis 9:3. The list goes on, as you will see in the multiple resources below.

See you start with a presupposition “This bible is not true, and the flood didn’t happen” So you wrote this series with that presupposition and it oozed through every chapter. I have a different worldview, I believe the bible is true and the flood of Noah was God’s judgment on the entire world.

I will provide answers to all of your ‘arguments’, but because of your presupposition against the bible, you will probably not be persuaded and will more than likely resort to name-calling, ridicule or more colorful language, I am not here to persuade, but answer and defend the Genesis account.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

Thanks for taking the time to read all of that, Spiderpam, though if you'd paid more attention to it you'd realize that the links you provided were my source material (which I soundly rebutted). I hope those aren't the counter-arguments you're promising me, as they're already contained in my article.

Yes, I did use humor in this article to make the whole lengthy thing go by easier, but that in itself doesn't invalidate any of my arguments. What "errors" did I make here? Which of my arguments was a Straw Man?

And contrary to your opinion, I did not start with the presuppositions "The Bible isn't true," and "The Flood didn't happen." Your OWN preconceived biases are reading things into this article that I didn't insert. If you'd read more carefully, you'd have noticed that I started this off by stating this article had no opinion one way or the other whether or not a Flood ever occurred. There are over 200 Flood Myths in ancient literature (many of them remarkably similar to Noah's account), and my purpose was to evaluate arguments made by Christian apologists trying to show how Noah's was possible. The difference between you and me is that I'm able to be more objective because I personally don't CARE whether or not there was ever a Flood. If there was, fine. If not, great. No skin off my nose. You are the one jettisoning logic and reason into orbit like a space monkey because you "believe" this account happened as told. When your primary modus operandi is "I believe it, therefore it must be true," you've just eliminated yourself from any intellectually honest examination.

Now, I have a few corrections to make to you:

1. You are dead wrong about God stating that only air breathing animals would go on the ark. In typical Christian fashion, you have picked out verses you liked and ignored others that are relevant. Neither of the passages you provided state "only" anything, but Genesis 6:19 states that God commanded Noah to take on two of "every living thing." Pay more attention to your own book.

2. My article did a fine job of pointing out how animals that live in the water would be unable to survive in a flood situation. Go reread the section about fresh water and salt water, as well as the part about water clarity.

3. Yes, insects breath through their skin. But they don't breath WATER through their skin. If they're covered in 5 miles of water they will drown. Either way, it's a moot point, as Genesis 6:20 has God instructing Noah to bring aboard insects (creeping things).

Wait, why am I spelling this all out logically? Let me just stop and switch over to YOUR method. I believe my reasoning is sound, therefore you must be wrong.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

PS: If you really want to start spouting official fallacies of argumentation, here's the common one you're falling for: A priori assumption. You're assuming your view is correct without any proof, then stating I must be wrong by default. If you get to do that, then I get to appeal to ridicule. (which I actually DIDN'T do)

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

The very fact that you claim I have no proof (even after viewing the resources I provided) proves your presupposition. You could have easily stated "I'm not convinced by the evidence you provided", but because of your entrench presupposition you make false and quite ironic claim of A priori assumption.

You can’t profess the ‘noble’ neutrality with a 5 part ’analyses’ under your belt.

I own the book you referenced The Genesis Flood released in 1960, There are more updated material, that means selective reading, on your part.

I never stated right/wrong, I stated we both have different starting points when viewing the Genesis Account and its evidences.

Genesis 7:14-15 (King James Version)

They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life

What is the breathe of life? Genesis 7:22 (King James Version)

“All in whose nostrils was the breath of life…”

There were two qualifications for the animals on board the Ark: they not only had to be those which moved about on the earth, but also those that had the breath of life, or "nephesh." The word "nephesh" refers to those animals with soul: or, if you like, "responsive personality." Thus, you would have all mammals that lived on land, reptiles, and birds. Amphibians did not need the Ark, and insects, worms, bacteria, etc., do not have a nervous system which is complex enough to mark the animal or organism as having a uniqueness and the trainability which "nephesh" implies. Thus, these organisms were preserved in various ways (insects burrow underground for one) outside the Ark through the flood.

Furthermore, the animals on the Ark represented all "flesh". (Genesis 6:19; 7:15-21) Insects were not considered "flesh". Living flesh has blood whereas insects do not. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11, 14) Insects, also, are not "souls". (The Hebrew word translated "soul" is nephesh). Genesis 9:5 translated literally says: "The blood of your souls." Souls, therefore, have blood whereas insects do not. The creatures in the Ark were "souls". (Genesis 9:9-10) Again, therefore, the conclusion is that the Bible excludes insects from creatures deliberately taken on board the Ark! Creatures wiped out in the Flood, according to the Bible, were those "in whose nostrils was the breath of life." (Genesis 7:22) This phrase may be a figure of speech but would appropriately exclude insects since insects do not have nostrils. Creeping things "Remes", once we have excluded insects as meant, could refer to animals that creep in the sense that lizards, mice, rats and at times cats creep – animals with their belly close to the ground or touching the ground. Another Hebrew word in the Old Testament is "Sheretz". Insects are included under the word "Sheretz" as well as creatures with many legs. "Sheretz" refers to the same animal groups as "Remes" but in addition is also used of insects whereas "Remes" is not. "Sheretz" refers to "creeping things" or "swarming creatures".

The errors in fact you’ve commit are typical, of someone you hasn’t thoroughly studied the Genesis account.

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

PS. It would also help if you knew what the biblical unicorn was.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

1. I can't even begin to PRETEND to imagine how this discussion between us would be aided if I understood what a unicorn was. What does does that have to do with ANYTHING?

2.I can profess anything I want. It's my hub. If you disagree with something I've said, provide examples and explanations. It's one thing to CLAIM you have evidence for something (which you're doing). It's something else entirely to actually PROVIDE it (which you've yet to do). You are confusing "arguments" with "proof." Your lecture above about insects and souls would be an example of the former, not the latter. (I actually spent a couple paragraphs at the beginning describing how apologists frequently interchange these terms at will without any consideration for their actual definitions)

3. To more specifically address your ARGUMENTS regarding amphibians and insects: I never argued anywhere that they were on the Ark. I simply argued that if they were NOT on the Ark they would have perished (for reasons scientifically discussed in the article). To summarize my argument more succinctly, what I basically stated was: "Amphibians could not survive the Flood conditions as described in Genesis unless they were aboard the Ark. Amphibians are obviously still around today. THEREFORE they were either on the Ark, or else the Flood didn't happen."

Since you want to insist on arguing that they were indeed NOT on the Ark, you are essentially supporting my assertion that the Flood did not in fact happen since you can't reasonably demonstrate how it WOULD be possible for them to survive outside (We're still waiting).

4. The entire point of my article was to critique Christian sources which claimed to be scientific. If you'd read my article more closely, you recall that it mostly concerned itself with pointing out how most of these so-called "scientific" arguments actually were NOT. I made a long list of the miracles that would have been necessary to make such a voyage possible, and then stated that it is unreasonable to ASSUME all these miracles occurred since the Bible never mentions them.

This is why it would be better for you to appeal to miracles to explain this whole endeavor (I even provided several specific miracles you could appeal TO). In that case, since there's absolutely no way for me to verify or falsify any claims of ancient miracles occurring, I'd be essentially handcuffed to rebut any of your claims. But since you (and your sources) AREN'T claiming miracles but scientific plausibility, you've opened your claims up to scientific scrutiny. And all I've done in my article is explain how most of your claims are scientifically impossible.

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

1. It reiterates my point that you do not understand the bible or you would have never shown pictures of mythical horse like creatures.

2. You can profess whatever you, but the fact that you wrote a 5 part series, plus another hub, repeating the same 'arguments' is hardly neutral.

3. Your ‘refutations’ goes are just recombination rants of the phrases “it’s impossible, and “it’s not plausible”, there is nothing scientific about them. You are attacking a straw man version of the Genesis account that you’ve created. It’s your straw man version of Noah’s flood that’s impossible, the actual biblical account is not as far fetched. Then you proceed with Argument By Dismissal (“you have no evidence”) ignoring or somehow disallowing the arguments against you. It’s easy to ‘win’ that way.

The answer to your fish 'argument' was in my very first response, proving you really don't want the truth, and will dismiss everything that goes against your presupposition. I had you pegged from jump street.

“We do not know how salty the sea was before the flood. The flood was initiated by the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11). Whatever the “fountains of the great deep” were the flood must have been associated with massive earth movements, because of the weight of the water alone, which would have resulted in great volcanic activity.

Volcanoes emit huge amounts of steam, and underwater lava creates hot water/steam, which dissolves minerals, adding salt to the water. Furthermore, erosion accompanying the movement of water off the continents after the flood would have added salt to the oceans. In other words, we would expect the pre-flood ocean waters to be less salty than they were after the flood.

The problem for fish coping with saltiness is this: fish in fresh water tend to absorb water, because the saltiness of their body fluids draws in water (by osmosis). Fish in saltwater tend to lose water from their bodies because the surrounding water is saltier than their body fluids. Saltwater/Freshwater Adaptation in Fish Today

Many of today's marine organisms, especially estuarine and tidepool species, are able to survive large changes in salinity. For example, starfish will tolerate as low as 16-18 percent of the normal concentration of seawater. There are migratory species of fish that travel between salt and fresh water. For example, salmon, striped bass, and Atlantic spurgeon spawn in fresh water and mature in salt water. Eels reproduce in salt water and grow to maturity in fresh water streams and lakes. So, many of today's species of fish are able to adjust to both fresh water and salt water. There is also evidence of post-flood specialization within a kind of fish. For example, the Atlantic sturgeon is a migratory salt/freshwater species but the Siberian sturgeon (a different species of the same kind) lives only in fresh water.

Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species. These include the families of toadfish, garpike, bowfin, sturgeon, herring/anchovy, salmon/trout/pike, catfish, clingfish, stickleback, scorpionfish, and flatfish. Indeed, most of the families alive today have both fresh and saltwater representatives. This suggests that the ability to tolerate large changes in salinity was present in most fish at the time of the flood. Specialization, through natural selection, may have resulted in the loss of this ability in many species since then.

Hybrids of wild trout (fresh water) and farmed salmon (migratory species) have been discovered in Scotland, suggesting that the differences between freshwater and marine types may be quite minor. Indeed, the differences in physiology seem to be largely differences in degree rather than kind.

The kidneys of freshwater species excrete excess water (the urine has low salt concentration) and those of marine species excrete excess salt (the urine has high salt concentration). Saltwater sharks have high concentrations of urea in the blood to retain water in the saltwater environment whereas freshwater sharks have low concentrations of urea to avoid accumulating water. When sawfish move from salt water to fresh water they increase their urine output 20 fold, and their blood urea concentration decreases to less than one-third. Major public aquariums use the ability of fish to adapt to water of different salinity from their normal habitat to exhibit freshwater and saltwater species together. The fish can adapt if the salinity is changed slowly enough.

So, many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.”

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

In response to your:

1. The picture of the unicorns (not getting on the Ark) was a joke. Geez! Lighten up a bit!

2. Thank you for allowing me to profess whatever I want in my own hubs (after previously telling me I can't). It sounds like the point you're making is that somebody is automatically un-neutral about a topic if they write anything about it. Is that correct?

3. Did you actually READ this article, or did you just skim it? Because none of my refutations and "rants" were directed at anything written in Genesis. They were directed at arguments made by Christian apologetic websites postulating ideas that are not found in Genesis either.

Thank you for wasting my time by pointing out the exceptions of marine life that are able to survive in both fresh and salt water (ie: salmon and sea bass, both of which I acknowledged in the article. Remember?) Then I ADDED that showing a few exceptions to the rule does do anything to explain the situation for animals who aren't the exceptions.

Do YOU even know what point you're trying to make when you start arguing? Because you just said that SOME ocean fish can tolerate a mush LESSER % of salinity, but you didn't mention any that could tolerate MORE...which they would obviously need to do since you just claimed the oceans got MORE salty not LESS. And you haven't said anything about fresh water fish being introduced to salt water (FYI: they always die).

If you'd take the time to notice, you just spent several paragraphs trying to convince me of a point I already conceded to you in my article: that SOME fish can survive in both. My question, both in the article and to you now, is: What about all the others that CAN'T? THOSE are the ones I was addressing (pay closer attention).

Lastly, if I had any presuppositions that I was indeed as hopelessly committed to as you seem to assume, I would just delete your comments instead of leaving them up so we can have a civil discussion about it all.

spiderpam profile image

spiderpam 6 years ago from USA

You start with a presupposition “This bible is not true, and the flood didn’t happen” So you wrote this series with that presupposition and it oozed through every chapter. I have a different worldview, I believe the bible is true and the flood of Noah was God’s judgment on the entire world. Our starting points are different, so we see the evidence differently.

I provided answers to all of your ‘arguments’(and then some), but because of your presupposition against the bible, you will probably not be persuaded and will more than likely resort to name-calling, ridicule or more colorful language (thank you for NOT doing this), I am NOT here to persuade, but answer and defend the Genesis account.

I responded to prove my first post, and I did. Be Well

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 6 years ago from Nashville Author

Spiderpam, what difference does it make whether I have presuppositions or not? You freely admit that you do too, (and you don't seem to find this problematic at all), so why are trying you so hard to prove me that I indeed have some presuppositions? Does it make any of my points any less valid? Yes, we obviously have two very different world views. Mine is based on facts and reason, and yours in based on unquestioning blind faith.

Secondly, you haven't provided answers for ANY of my questions, let alone "all of them!" What you've provided here are a couple meager RESPONSES, that's it. There's a HUGE difference between satisfactorily ANSWERING a question and merely attempting to RESPOND to one. You have obviously only done the latter since none of your comments addressed any of the specific questions I actually raised (ie: how did non-exception fresh water fish survive the shift to salt?).

You've claimed that I used a lot of Straw Man arguments (which you were considerate enough to carefully define for all our third-grade readers) and Appeal to Ridicule, but you apparently don't truly understand either of these concepts. There aren't any Straw Man arguments in my article because I didn't MAKE UP any of my arguments! I took them all directly from the sources YOU provided! If you'd paid closer attention, everything in bold lettering in my article was a direct copy-and-paste from and If you think were charicatured, take it up with THEM not ME. They're the ones that made 'em up!

Finally, you haven't "proved" anything here other than your ability to repeat yourself and dodge questions you can't answer.


Thatguypk profile image

Thatguypk 5 years ago

pay2cEM... I spent a couple of hours reading your knock down of the validity of the Flood, and half an hour reading the debate? between yourself and spiderpam!! I am holding you entirely responsible for me not getting a proper nights sleep.

I appreciate that this was all written a few months ago, but I'm pretty new here, so forgive me for digging up old arguments. Oh, did I mention? I thought your hub(s) were extremely thorough, extremely funny, and extremely clever.

Clever, because as you pointed out, (although spiderpam completely missed the point) you were not attacking Genesis, but were attacking the fools who tried, in vain, to apply scientific reason to validate the Biblical account. I read the entire piece not as an attack on Christian belief, but as an attack on irrational argument.

Belief, by it's very nature, allows for the physically impossible to be spiritually feasible. On this fact alone could spiderpam have defended the Biblical account of Genesis. But she chose instead to attempt to discredit your hubs by trying to defend the indefensible.

Congratulations to you, friend, for keeping a civil tongue in your head.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

Thanks, Thatguypk, and welcome to our humble abode! It's unfortunate that Spiderpam didn't stick around long enough to see our friendly conversation through to the end, but that seems to be about par for the course when theists of any variety get confronted with questions they can't answer.

If you've read other of my hubs (and some of their comments), you might have noticed that is a fairly popular practice to label me as a "biased non-believer with antagonistic presuppositions," but the fact is that I was a devout Fundamentalist for the majority of my life. It was only when I went seeking apologetic defenses to problems such as these that I finally realized which side the evidence was on.

Finally, since you find my hubs funny and clever and ridiculously awesome (which you may have forgotten to type), I can see that you have a sophisticated pallet and exquisite taste, and can therefore deduce that your own hubs must be quite brilliant by extension. I look forward to reading them.

Thatguypk profile image

Thatguypk 5 years ago

How did I manage to omit "ridiculously awesome" from my comments.... jeez, I must have been very tired! ;-)

Read your hub on Flight 93. I think we're in the same school of thought concerning the happenings of 9/11.

Do you think that the majority of Americans simply choose to ignore the facts because they are scared to consider the possibility that their own government could have been involved in self-inflicted carnage for political gain?

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

I think the biggest problem is that the majority of Americans get their news from the mainstream media, who just tout their propaganda. Obviously that only compounds the "it-could-never-happen-to-us" mentality that nobody ever seems to learn from history to correct.

But I'm glad you mentioned that article because I've got several more on 9/11 that I haven't published on here yet. I'll have to get right to it.

william 5 years ago

the animals where babies

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

@ William: Nice try, but no cigar. Several scientific reasons why Noah didn't take loads of baby animals on the Ark would be:

1. Baby animals don't have mates, which the Bible claims all the animals on the Ark had. Animals do not acquire mates until they sexually mature, at which point they are usually fully grown.

2. Unlike adult animals, baby animals would require an inordinate amount of special care from Noah's family. Where were they getting all the milk necessary to properly replace all the nourishment the babies would normally get from their mother? Even if they had the boat stocked with enough milk for a full year (that magically wouldn't spoil), how are 8 people going to feed and care for several thousands of animals?

3. Many animals learn the skills they need to survive in the world from their parents. Elephants, for example, have one of the longest nurturing phases in the animal kingdom (some 2-4 years before they're capable of surviving on their own). You can't raise a bunch of wild animals on a freaking boat, and then turn them loose in the wild and expect them not to die within a few weeks.

william 5 years ago

cow and goat milk later killed for flesh

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

@ William: I have no idea what that last comment means since there's no capitalization, no punctuation, no sentence structure, and what words are present are incoherent. If you're too lazy to write an intellectual comment, then I'm not going to waste any time trying to decipher your intent enough to respond to it.

william 5 years ago

well they brought Cows and Goats that where producing milk so they could feed the babies and later they killed them for flesh making room for when the animals when they grew larger. also your water problem solved its was raining for forty days and the salt was reduced due to the amount of fresh water and i should not have to explain the birds and the bee's and no capitalization, no punctuation seems rather petty to me. or maybe you just dont like my answer

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

You're right, I don't like your answer. Not because it wasn't punctuated - and thus unintelligible - but because it wasn't thought-out. I already explained above why baby animals weren't on the Ark, but since your entire argument seems to be resting on this hypothesis, I mine as well address it again.

1. The Bible states that all the animals came aboard with their mates. Baby animals don't have mates.

2. Without parental training on how to survive in the wild, baby animals could not survive in the wild once they got off the Ark.

3. MOST animals mature to their adult size within a year of birth. Since these "babies" were already alive long enough to travel to the Ark in the first place, by the time their boat trip was over, they would have been fully grown. So merely making them babies to start the trip doesn't solve your space problem by the end of it.

4. Even IF you're correct that baby animals were on board, being supplied milk by (fully grown?) cows and goats, you still don't have enough milk or helpers to take care of the animals. Your average cow gives about 4 gallons of milk per day under IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCES, which life aboard the Ark certainly was not. A goat can produce about 2. You've supposedly got 7 cows and 7 goats that give milk, for a total of 42 gallons of milk a day. That's several thousand gallons shy of the amount of milk you need to feed an Ark load of baby animals, not to mention that they'd all need to be hand-fed, which you don't have enough people for.

5. No one on the Ark was drinking rain water. If you'd read your Bible more closely, it says that the only window on the Ark was sealed shut the entire trip, so nobody was holding out buckets to collect the rain. And since the rain stopped after the first 40 days, what were they collecting the next 12 and a half months?

See? You haven't thought this through.

william 5 years ago

ive gave it plenty of thought and i enjoyed reading some of you other work reminds of the author david sedaris recomended by my daughter we can get along ill take the weed you keep the speed ill stick to girls and plane thing i dont believe anything on that day and i will keep hope god has both are backs peace

mrpopo profile image

mrpopo 5 years ago from Canada

I enjoyed reading this series, and the funny debates with spiderpam and william. I am hoping the latter is a troll as in the midst of his incomprehensible speech he claims to have a daughter and that he uses drugs. Nice of him to offer sharing it with you though, not many people do that nowadays. The rest I couldn't decipher but I think it roughly means "Live Long and Prosper".

In contrast and, unfortunately, it doesn't look like spiderpam is a troll. He seems sincere in his assertions despite your evidence, which is unfortunate because you've done a thorough and hilarious job in addressing the issues with the Ark. I am glad he brought up the biblical unicorn though, that was extremely crucial to the discussion.

pay2cEM profile image

pay2cEM 5 years ago from Nashville Author

Thanks for the translation, Mrpopo. I just kinda gave up trying to figure out what William was saying. I think maybe he didn't share all those drugs after all.

As for the unicorn...well, let's just say that in hindsight it appears to be the "1" in the equation that I forgot to carry. It changes everything.

Stevie 4 years ago

I know this was all months ago but thanks for the fun and funny read. I had thought of a few of these previously but you really outdid yourself in my book. But I have a question (yes this is an actual question and I would like a satisfactory answer.)

Why do people follow blind faith?

One more question...

Who do you think will win the 2012 presidential election?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article